It's an idiom for a reason, but I'm not going to say it.

A point that I've found myself returning to many times so this can be short and sweet I hope. My drawings are of entireties, an entire field, flock, or texture. There isn't anything beyond the page, so I don't want to imply that there is, this is a given. Michael Frank referred to me illustrating the 'whole' as a power play, which I found amusing and true. All this is mirrored in how I want them to be viewed as a singular composition first, then perhaps the individual elements inspected. The individual elements, by the way, also have to fit within the part/whole issue. They themselves are made of sub-particles, and are sub-particles themselves within the drawing - it's all very recursive. Anything else I say is probably a retread of my previous posts, a good sign: life (or art) imitating art (or life)?

Off in the distance

I don't want to be defensive, though this post is and probably should not be. My drawings certainly are repetitive, and I understand how they one might interpret them as 'obsessive,' but I don't look at them as either. I do not find them repetitive in execution: each iteration on the page is distinct from the ones prior, an act of active forgetting, each an attempt to match the ideal which I have constructed in my head. The process of placing the first drawing on the paper is no different than placing the last.

These are all also the basis for why my drawings are not obsessive - I let go of what I have done previously with ease, I don't let past errors influence my current task. Making more drawings does not add more meaning (meaning is necessitated by a full page taken as a unit). Obsession is rooted in the past, these drawings require the present. My current plan of display will hopefully allow them to be viewed primarily on a holistic scale. Viewing will not jump from one object in a drawing to another to another to another in the repetitive spirit and will shift instead to the drawings as a whole, a creation which is very much not repetitive (see post about patterns).

Tile versus stucco

I'm not interested in patterns (from a design perspective), I'm interested in pattern identification (from an observational perspective) and I think there's a huge difference. Patterns are conscious repetitions with a definable formula for their creation. The only true pattern in my drawings are the individual marks which I then repeat to make a composition. Patterns found on the larger scale - spatial, textural and structural specifically - are prescribed by the viewer; the placement of patterns (objects) into the scope of the whole drawing is automatic, dictated by what is near and where I think I 'need' to work next. The larger compositions appear to have elements of pattern but disseminate into randomness quickly; there does not exist a formula to define them but it can be found. The objective natural world doesn't consider things in succession, only one element and then another element and it's up to us, the subjective observer, to condense this into a comprehensive, defined pattern.

That felt good.

Lastly there is a fork.

The past several weeks I've been thinking about my drawings in a way which is I found to be a dead end, but I'm glad that it happened - it's not often I reach a satisfying conclusion in my work (a satisfying dead end?). I was introduced to the concepts of structuralism and semiotics, which I will let wikipedia summarize, but I fluctuate back and forth often as to how focal these concepts should be to my work. The most obvious connections are in how my work is reliant upon bringing in information that isn't objectively available (an understanding of something on an arbitrary level) and how I use a fixed set of actions to create an object. It's actually fairly easy to discuss my work in these terms. However these terms don't strike me as particularly functional, except perhaps to provide some legitimacy through linguistic theory. It's easier to discuss my work in other terms that are less alienating, especially because it's not all that close to being my sole focus. If someone views my work in this manner, I would be comfortable with discussing this and knowing that it is not off base at all. But I also want to keep it from being the sole hangup that people respond to when they view my work.

It's called that for a reason you know.

First on the list is the idea of one's (my) place in the world that is not the self (me). One of the first concepts I wanted to address in the series, I wanted the process of drawing - placement and concentration - to be a reaction to my immediate state and in doing so, each individual object reflects its relationship to those closest to it. The goal is to eliminate any detachment I have from the drawings, a state which I find difficult to achieve but is ultimately rewarding.

I'm no longer as focused making my drawings process-central as is necessary for this reading but it still informs my act of drawing - sitting and repeating the form is a sort of meditative state which I think does translate into my pieces, and awareness of what I am doing becomes key and a fulfilling act in of itself (I'm not drawing split pieces of wood just to end up with a bunch of split pieces of wood). But this is a back burner sort of idea that is important for production but not in explanation. This I can let go for now.

In which Jeremy pares down

This past week a respectable source firmly suggested that I articulate and solidify the concepts in my drawings. I get as far as some tasty ways of phrasing what I'm thinking about but get stuck a few sentences in. It's time to quiet my thoughts, decide which I'm comfortable letting go of. Lists might be helpful.

Awareness of the self and surroundings
Symbols and what they represent / how they relate
Recognizing and organizing patterns
Why I'm resistant to 'repetition' and 'obsessiveness'
The summation of parts into a whole... and beyond
Comfort
Ambiguous forms
How and if 'human' processes all of this differently than 'nature'

All these and maybe more to be sifted through and potentially discarded. The roundabout path in which I currently have to take to reach my point does not sit well with me currently. I'm making drawings of earthworms, sproutlings, split logs and radiators for goodness' sake.

In which Jeremy gets down

I think I made a post once and claimed many times that restricting myself in some ways forces creativity in others. Sometimes I impose this upon myself ('if I can say what I want, I can say it in these frames which I already built'), sometimes they happen to me out of necessity. After visiting the room in which I'm displaying yesterday I had to begin to consider how to display as much as I want in not a very large area. And I think this is good for me because it's making me rearrange things in positive and meaningful ways (as opposed to a sharp-looking row of drawings. Vertical pairings - one airy field of tiny objects above one solid field of tick marks. Feeling good until it needs to be revised, which it will not.